Increasing Charitable Giving by Mobile Phone: A Fund-raising Field Experiment
Last registered on November 01, 2017

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
Increasing Charitable Giving by Mobile Phone: A Fund-raising Field Experiment
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0001759
Initial registration date
November 05, 2016
Last updated
November 01, 2017 5:08 PM EDT
Location(s)

This section is unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access to this information.

Request Information
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
University of Groningen
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
University of Copenhagen
Additional Trial Information
Status
In development
Start date
2016-11-06
End date
2018-01-31
Secondary IDs
Abstract
Innovations in consumer payment instruments urge charities to adapt the way they raise funds. In door-to-door fund raising, the shift in preference from giving cash to making donations by mobile phone changes the nature of the interaction between solicitor and donor. This study deals with the challenge posed to charities on how to ensure that mobile phone users participate in the fund raising drive. We investigate this in collaboration with a Danish charity. Our 3x2 design targets respondents who have indicated a preference to give by mobile phone. The treatments differ in two dimensions: a. whether respondents are asked to state the amount they intend to give and the intensity of this pledge. b. the presence or absence of a deadline to complete the transfer.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Fosgaard, Toke and Adriaan Soetevent. 2017. "Increasing Charitable Giving by Mobile Phone: A Fund-raising Field Experiment." AEA RCT Registry. November 01. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/1759/history/22839
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
In the annual door-to-door fund-raising drive of a large charitable organization, solicited households who indicate that they wish to donate by mobile phone at a later date are randomly assigned to one of six treatments. The treatments differ in two dimensions: a. whether respondents are asked to state the amount they intend to give and the intensity of this pledge. b. the presence or absence of a deadline to complete the transfer.
Intervention Start Date
2016-11-06
Intervention End Date
2016-11-07
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
a. Donations by respondents who have indicated to donate at a later point using their mobile phone; b. Pledged amounts by respondents who have indicated to donate at a later point using their mobile phone.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
Participating solicitors will be randomly assigned to six groups:
I. NPinf: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date do not have to make a pledge. These respondents do not face a deadline to complete the transfer;
II. NP7: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date do not have to make a pledge. These respondents face a seven-day deadline to complete the transfer;
III. SPinf: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to make a soft pledge concerning the intended amount. These respondents do not face a deadline to complete the transfer;
IV. SP7: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to make a soft pledge concerning the intended amount. These respondents do face a deadline to complete the transfer;
V. FPinf: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to make a firm pledge concerning the intended amount. These respondents face no deadline to complete the transfer;
VI. FP7: Respondents who indicate a preference to making a donation by mobile phone at a later date are asked to make a firm pledge concerning the intended amount. Respondents face a deadline to complete the transfer.

Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
One of the PIs took 6 instruction packages (one of each treatment) and randomly put them in one of six bags that also contained the other materials solicitors needed. These six bags were randomly ordered in a bunch that was tied together with a piece of rope. At the intervention date, the helpers picked one of these bunches and assigned a bag to a solicitor arriving (taking out the instructions and reading them out aloud to the solicitor). Each time the helper had finished a bunch, he or she fetched a new bunch of six bags.
Randomization Unit
Level of randomization is the solicitor level
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
300 solicitors
Sample size: planned number of observations
Planned number of total observations in terms of households approached: 30,000 (100 per solicitor)
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
50 solicitors in NP7: no pledge, 7 day deadline;
50 solicitors in NPinf: no pledge, no deadline;
50 solicitors in SP7: soft pledge, 7 day deadline;
50 solicitors in SPinf: soft pledge, no deadline;
50 solicitors in FP7: firm pledge, 7 day deadline;
50 solicitors in FPinf: firm pledge, no deadline;
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
IRB of the Faculty of Economics and Business of the University of Groningen
IRB Approval Date
2016-11-04
IRB Approval Number
RUG_FEB2016AS01